Allowed

Mr. Yalala Ashwini Kumar Reddy , Yalala Ashwani Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Oct 2022CRLP/6711/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner-acused No.3 for offences under Section 498A IPC. The Court found allegations of harassment and assault were vague, lacking dates/places, and unsupported by police statements. Jurisdiction over alleged acts committed in USA was barred absent Central sanction.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings against petitioner-accused No.3 in C.C. No. 990 of 2017. Proceedings against other accused Nos. 1 and 2 to proceed on merits.

Mr. Yalala Ashwini Kumar Reddy , Yalala Ashwani Kumar… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:6711OF 2019

¶6

Between:

¶7

Itlr. Yalala Ashwini Kumar Reddy @ Yalala Ashwani Kumar, S/o Late Y. Balvanth Reddy Aged 34 Years Occ Employee Rl/o U.S.A, R/o H.NO. 3-19-94/84, It4adhuranagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, Presently Residing at Richnand, Virginia of America.

¶8

... Petitione r/Accused No.3

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep. through its Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad.

¶11

Y alala Sirisha, W/o. Y. Keerti Sai Reddy D/o. Kollu Narayana Reddy Aged 25 years Occ Housewife R/o. H. No. 3-14-1171D2, Vivekananda Nagar Colony, Road No.3 ltlansoorabad, Saroornagar lVlandal, R.R. District.

¶12

...Responde nts/Respondents

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of Ct.P -C praying that in the circumstances stated in the [t/]emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused no.3 in Crl..No. 59 of 2017 in CC.No. 990 of 2017 on the file of Police Vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2019

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lt4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of arrest of the petitioners in the event of arrest by the police in Crl.No.59 of 2017 in C.C. No. 990 of 2017 on the file of Police Vanasthlipuram, Ranga Reddy District.

¶16

This Petition comrng on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T. PRADYUIV1NA KUIMAR REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioners and of the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri M.D.SRIKANTH, Advocate for the Respondent No.2

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶19

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6711 of 2Ol9

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Proceclure by thc petitioner-accusecl No.3 to quash C.Cl-No.99O of 2017 on the file of learncd VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rachakonda at Hayathnagar, the cognizance of which was taken lor the offences under Sections 498 A and 506 of the Indian Pcnal Code.

¶22

The facts in brief as can lte seen from the charge sheet are as under

¶23

a) On 21.01.2O17 ar 1.3O PM the de-facto complainant has lodged a complaint before Vanasthalipuram Police Station alleging that marriage of her daughter - respondent No.2 (hereinafter will be referred as "victirni') was performed with accused No.1 on 15.04.2015. Accused No.2 is the mother of accused No.1 and whereas thc petitioner-accused No.3 is the elder brother of accused No.l. At the time of marriage, an amount of Rs. 15 iakhs, 36 thr_rlas of gold and 5O thulas of silver were given as dou,ry to thc family of accused by the parents of victim. Alter the marriage, the victim joined her husband at her

¶24

l l

¶25

¶26

in - laws house situated at Ramanthapur, Hyderabad.^.l.hc family ol the accused have proposcd to have marriage of the petitioner,accu secl No.3 with the victim, for which the victim has refused. Thereafter thc marriage of the victim was settled through marriage bureau with accused No. 1, who is younger brother of the petitioner-accused no.3. Since the victim relused for the marriage with the petitioner-accused No.3, al1 the accused bore grudge against the victim, from the next day of marriage of accused No.1 with the victim, accused No. 1 along with accused Nos. I and 2 have started harassing the victim for additional dowry of Rs.20 iakhs and they beat the victim indiscriminately with legs and hands.

¶27

b) On 25.O5.2O15 the victim along with accused No.l went to USA and stayed for two days at the house of petitioner_ accused No.3 situated at Richmond and later they went to the house of accused No.1 at Virginia. Accused No.1 started harassing the victim mentally and physically for want of additional dowry. In the month of February, 20 16, accused No. 1 sent the victim to india for bringing additional dowry and he threatened her that in case if she does not bring additional dowry, her pregnancy would be aborted.

¶28

c) On 19.07.2016 ug:rin the r,ictin'r reLur-ncd bacl< to USA and explaincrl lrr.r'husbanri about the inabiLitr.of lter parents ro provide additronrrl dos rv. Acr:usecl No.1 has t:tkcn sign.rLures of the victim on u,hitc papers lbrciblr-. Accused No.2 came to USA, rvherein accusccl Nos.1 trncl 2 usecl tci h:rrass the victim and beat her several timcs. The victirn explair-red the harassment meted out b,1. hcr in the hands of accused. Accordingir,, the mother ol the victim i.e., de-facto complainant has approached the Police Station and filed comnla in r.

¶29

d) Accused No.2, nho is mother o[ accused No.1 used to scold the victim in filthy language and warned her that the victim needs to have sexual life with accused Nos.1 and 3. On 22.07.2016, the victim gave birth to a male child. Harassment of accused No.l on the victim continued even during the subsequent pregnancy of the victim and she was not provided with proper food and she has not allowed to breast feed hcr six months old child. They returned back to Indian on lS.O2.2OlT and the accused have left the victim at the airport and then she wen L lo her pa renl s' housc.

¶30

e) Accused No.1 used to suspect the character of the victim and used to say that her son did not born through him. Finally,

¶31

-1

¶32

on a complaint grvcn b]. the mother of the victim, a case in Crime No.59 of 2Ol7 for the olfence under Section 49g_A of the Indian Fenal code r,vas rcgistered. During the course of investigation, thc statcments of de-facto complainant and her husband, victim and othcr u.itnesses \rrere recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal procedure. On completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed against the accused Nos. 1 to 3, the cognizance of which nas taken as C.C.No.99O of 2Ol7 on the file of lcarned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Rachakonda at Hayathnagar for the offences under Sections alleging that they have committed offences punishable under Sections 49g-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal petition is fited by the petitioner-accused No.3 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No. 99O of 2OlZ on the file of learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Rachakonda at Hayathnagar on thc follorving grounds:^'

¶33

i) There is no spccific allegation against the petitioner_ accused No.3 and his name is not mentioned in the FIR.

¶34

ii) Immediately after the marriage of the victim with accused No. 1, the pe titioner - accused No.3 went to USA and stiil he continued to be in USA.

¶35

iii) 'l'he ciistance betr,veen lhe residencc ol ritc petitroneraccuserl No. 3 is 320 kilometers and hc neve| use(1 to fretlucnr"iy vrsll cc(.us(.d No. I aI],1 the r ietim.

¶36

As seen from thc record, though noLicc \-as servcd on respondent No.2, there is no reprcsentation on bel.ralf of respondent No.2. Hcnce, arguments on behzrll oi rcspondcnt No.2 ar- lrr-arcd as lteard.

¶37

Heard Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, lcarned senior counsel representing Sri T.S.Anirudh Reddy, learned counsel on record for the petitioner-accused No.3 and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public^prosecutor.

¶38

Now the point for determination is

¶39

"Whether the proceedings against the petitione r-accu sed No. 3 in C.C.No. 99O of 2Ol7 ott the file of learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Rachakonda at Hayathnagar, can be quashecl under Sectior, 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ?

¶40

It is alleged by tlre de-facto complainant that petitioner, accused No.3 used to harass the victim along with accused Nos.1 and 2 physically and mentally and he has also beat the

¶41

victim. The complaint s,as given b_r, mother of thc victim in India, when the harassment u'as bt:ing mcted out by the victim in the hands o[ accused. On going through thc contents of the complaint, dated 21.01.20 i 7 given by the mother of the victim, in the last paragraph it is szrid that accused Nos. 1 and 2 have been harassing her daughtcr i.e., the victim and therefore, requested to take action. ln thc complaint, the d.e facto complainant did not mention anything against the petitioneraccused No.3. If really there is an elemcnt of harassment by the petitioner-accused No.3, there is no reason as to why the name of the petitioner-accused No.3 also not mentioned in the complaint. The petitioner-accused No.3 came to India on O4.O4.2O15 to attend the r.r,edding of the victim with accused No. 1 and after marriage of the victim with accused No. 1, the petitioner-accused No.3 has left India on 24.04.2015. That means, the petitioner-accused No.3 has stayed in India for 20 days. The marriage of the victim with accused No.1 was taken place on i5.04.2015. That means, after the marriage, the petitioner-accused No.3 has stayed in India for 9 days as he left India on 24.O4.2OI5. Therefore, the question to be considered is, within these 9 days, was thcre any possibility for the petitioner to harass the victim. The statement of victim and he"

¶42

parclls r(,(luirc'rl to bc considered, in order to sce s hethr:r thr.re .rre anv irllcgirlions ag:rinst the petitioner zrccusccl No..l thiti imn.rrcliirtc'll aftcr the m.rrriage, s,hen the victim joir-rt:cl tlre matrimonial Irouse, u,hether there was any harassment ineted out lx' the vir:tint in the hands of petitioner-accu sccl No.3.

¶43

In the statement of the de-facto complainant recordcd under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal procedure on 2l.Ol.2Ol7 , it is stated that after the marriage they w,ere good terms for thc first lew days and after six months of the marriage, accused No.1 took her to USA and they lived in Virginia and ever since they moved to USA, the mother and brother of erccused No.1 used to call her daughter and threatened her that they would perform marriage o[ accused No. I with another woman. On going through the said statement, it is clear that de-facto complainant did not make any allegatior-r that immediately after the marriagc w.hen the petitioner-acc used No.3 stayed in India until 24.04.2014, he has harassed her.

¶44

Similarly the statement of the father of the victim rvould also go to show that the de-facto complainant and accused No.l have taken good care of de-facto complainant fcrr few days and

¶45

¶46

after six months, but^{harassmentof accusedon his daughter} started in USA.^{The statement of LW3 also do not speak} anything against^{the petitioner accused No 3, u'hen he was in} I ndia

¶47

g. However, in the^{statementof the victim she has} mentioned that^{accusedNos.1 to 3 used to beat her with hands} and legs and later^{her husband took hcr to USA' Thatmeans'} according to the^{victim, alter the marriagc, before she left to} USA on 25.05.2015^{accusedNos. 1 to 3 have beat her' But the} victim has not^{given the date on lr'hich the petitioner-accused} No.3 aiong with^{accusedNos.l and 2 havc beat her' If really the} victim was beaten^{alsoby petitioneraccusedNo'3, alsothere is} no reason as to^{why she did not inform aboutthe same to her} parents. If really the^{petitioner accusedNo 3 and accused} Nos.l and 2^{have beat the victimeven bcforethe victim left to} USA, de-facto^{complainant ought to have given complaintto the} Police. Even otherwise,^{the allegationsmade against the} petitioner-accused No.3^{are omnibus allegations andbald} statement to the^{extentthat accused Nos lto 3 have beat her'} The allegations^{against the petitioner-accusedNo'3 herein are} omnibus and^{not specilicand they do not speak as to on which}

¶48

¶49

d.rte , in \ hosc llrescncc and at u,hich place sr_rch ailegalrons of harassing il'rc r.ictin-r rr,cre mac1e.

¶50

lt is to bc noted that in the complaint and aiso in the statement of the mother of the victim and also in thc statcment of thc father ot the victim, nothing is mentioned about the alleged harassment or beating by the petitioner_accused No.3 belore she left lor USA. The parents of the victim have st:rted in their 1 6 I Cr.^p. C. statements as LWs 1 and 2 that the harassment was started in USA but not at Hyderabad. In Onkar Nath Mishra and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and anotherl, the Hon,ble Apex Court held as follows:

¶51

" I 7. The term^,.cnteltg", which has been made punishable under Section 4ggA I.p.C. has been definecl in the Explanation appended, to the said Section, to mean: (i) ang tuilful conduct tohich is of such a nature as is likelg to driue the woman to commit suicid.e or to ccuse groue injury or danger to tife, timb or health u.thether mental or physical of the utoman; or (ii) harassment of the tuomon uthere such harassment is u-tith a uieu to coercing her or ang person related to her to meet any unlatoful demand. for any propertA or ualuable secuitg or is on account of failure bg her or anA person related to her to meet such demand. Therefore, the consequences of crueltg, uthich are either

¶52

(20i18) 2 Suprenre Cou( (.aJcs j6I

¶53

¶54

likelg to driue a u)oman to com.mit suicicle or to ceuse graue injury, danger to life, Iimb or health, uhether mental or phgsicat of the Luoman or the hctrassment of a u)omon, uther e such harassment is utith a L)ieu) to coercing her or ang person relatecl to her to meet anA unlawful demand. are required to be established. in order to bing home an offence under Section 49gA I.P.C."

¶55

1 1. It has become a practice in this part of State to involve the kith and kin of the husbands as one of the accused in the complaint under Section 49g_A of the Indian penal Code in order to harass them, so that they can exert pressure on accused No.1, who would come in terms with the aggrieved wife. The Hon'ble Supreme court many a times warned to see that the practice of involving the reratives of the husband in the offence under Section 498_,4. of the Indian penal Cocle has to be discouraged.

¶56

In another authority between preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another2, whcrein the Hon,ble Apex Court held as follows:

¶57

"Ttrc ultimate object of justice is to find out the tntth and punish the guiltg and protect the innocent. .lb find^out the truth is a heralean task in majontg of

¶58

'^{(2010)7Supremc} Cou.r Cases 667

¶59

¶60

tlte,se complait s. The tendencg of impticat ry husband. cLnd all ltis intmediate relations is a/so nol uncofiLmon. At Lintes. euert ctfter the concLusion of cirninaL lrial, it is difJlcult to escertahl the real truth. The courts haue to be extrentely careful and cautious in d.ealing with these cornplaints and rrLust take pragmatic realities into cortsideratiort tLthile dealing with matrimonial cases. TIte allegations of harassment of husbantl,s close relations ruho had been liuing in d.ifferent cities and neuer uisited or rarely uisited the place uhere the complainant resided ulould. haue an entirelg different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great cdre a nd. circumspection.

¶61

ln Neelu Chopra and another vs. Bharti3, the Hon,ble Apex Court helcl as follou,s:

¶62

"ht order to todge a proper cornplaint, mere mentiott of the sections and" the language of those seclions is not be all antd end" of the matter. What is required to be brought to ttLe noticc of the court is the panlianlars of the offence committed bg each and. euery acansed and the role played. bg each and euery accused in committing of that offence.,,

¶63

14 ln the complaint liled by the mother of the victim, she has not mentioned anything about alleged harassment of the

¶64

'(2(09) I0 Suprer-d.C0{1^{( .ascs} I84

¶65

¶66

petrtioner in USA. Acr:orcling to Lhe de-factocomplainan t. r;ictim and accused No. t have initially stayed in thc housc of petitioner_accu sed No.3 for few days. In the statcment oi the victim and also in the statements of her parents, no u,here it is rnentioned that petitioner-accused No.3 has harassed or bcat or insulted or humiliated when accused No.i and the victim stayed in the house of Accused No.3 at Richmond, USA_

¶67

As per the statements of LWs 1 to 4 including the statement of victim, it is clear that petitioner_accused No.3 used to go to the house of accused No.l during the weekends and used to scold her and harassed her physically and mentally and the petitioner_accused No.3 used to harass her through skype from India. It is stated that in the weekends the petitioner_ accused No.3 used to come to the house of the victim and accused No.l and scold the victim But the details of such alleged harassment i.e., date, place and time are not given bv any of the witnesses. There is no reason as to whv the victim has not given such details and why the victim has not given any complaint to the police at USA.

¶68

The complaint was grven against the accused on 21 .O1.2O17 and on perusal of such complaint, it rvas glven

¶69

¶70

against ac('Llscd Nos. 1 and 2 bur nol against the petitioneraccused Nr>.3. Thc victrm ancl her parcnts given the statement against rhc pctirioner rhat he has harassed the r.ictim in USA. Everr if the contenLion of the victim that the petitioner also used to travel frorn his placc to the place of the victim and accused No. 1 in thc weekends and used to harass her, the question is whcther the Potice or the Courts in India can try the case of offe nce, which allegedlv has taken place at USA. Learned senior counsel for tl-re petitioner has submitted that as per Section 1gB of the Code of Criminal procedure, if the offence is committed outside Indiar, unless sanction is accordecl by the Central Government, the offence cannot be enquired into. Section lgg of the Code of Criminal procedure, reads as under:

¶71

"188. Offence committed_ outside Ind.ia. WTten an offence is committed outsid"e India-

¶72

(a) bg a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elseuhere; or

¶73

(b) by a person, not being such citiz,en, on anA ship or aircraft registered. in Ind_ia, he mag be dealt utith in respect of such offence as if it had. been committed at any place uithin Ind_ia at u,thich he may be found:^Prouided that, notwith_stand,ing anything in ang of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shatl be inouired into or tied" in India

¶74

l-1

¶75

except LDitlt the preuious sanctiot^{tof the Certral} Couen'LmetLt.''

¶76

l,earned counsel lor the^{pe titioncr has alsocitecl :rn} authority reported il'r Thota^{Venkateshwarluv. State of Andi'rra} Pradcsh through Principal^{Secretaryand anothera, thc Hon'ble} Supremc Court hcld as follou's:

¶77

" 14. The language of^{Section 188 Cr.P.C. is} quite clear that uhen an^offence is^committed outside India bg a citizen^{of India, he mag be dealt} uith in respect of such^{offences as if theg had been} committed in India.^{The prouiso,hou.teuer,indicates} that such offences^{could be inquired into or tied} only after hauing obtained^{the preuious sanction of} the Central GouentmenL^{As mentioned hereinbefore,} in Ajog Aggarutal's^{case (supra), itutas heldthat} sotacti on under Section^{188Cr.P.C.is not a cottdition} preced.ent for taking cognbance^{of an offenceand' if} need be, it could^{be obtainedbeforethe tial begins.} Euen in his concuring^{judgment, R.M. Sahai' J.'} obserued^as follous^:-

¶78

"29. Language of the section is plain and simple. It operates^{u.there on offenceis} committed bg a citizen of Indio^outsidethe country. Requirements are,^{therefore, one-} commission of an offence; second -^{bg an} Indian citizen; and third - thot it should^haue been committed outside the country."

¶79

a {2ol l) 9 Suprcme Court Cases527-',

¶80

1 5. t\ltlrctullt the decision in Ajay Agganual's case (srtprct) tucts rerLdered I the bcLckqround of a cotrsltirctcy alleged to Itaue beert hatched bg the ctccrtserl. tlrc ratio of the dec[sion is conJined to what has been obserued hereinaboue in the interpretation of Set;tion lBS Cr.P.C. Tlrc prouiso to Section I88, uthiclt hos been extracted hereinbefote, is a fetter on the potuers of the inuestigating authoritg to inquire ittto or try anA offence mentioned in the earlier part of the Sectiott, except tuith the preuious sanction of the Central Couemment. The fetters, howeuer, are imposed only when the stage of triat is reoched, rahich clearlg indicates that no sanction in terms of Secfion I88 is required till commencement of the trial. lt is only after the decision to try tlLe offend.er in India was felt necessary that the preuious so.nction of the Central Gouemment uould. be required before the trial could commence.

¶81

Accordinglg, upto the stage of taking cognizance, n"o preuious sanction tuould be required from the Central Gouemment in terms of the prouiso to Sectton 188 Cr.P.C Hotaeuer, the trial cannot proceed begond the cognizance stage without the preuious sanction of the Central Gouemment. TLrc Magistrate is, therefore, fiee to proceed against the accused in respect of offences hauing been committed in India and to complete the tial and_ pass jttdgment therein, without being inhibited. by

¶82

¶83

tlTe other alleged ofJbrtces for tuhich sanction tuould be required."

¶84

On analyzing the abovc discussion, allegations made against the petitioner that he has beat the victim in India with hands and lcgs along with accused No.l and 2 during his 9 days stay at Hyderabad after wedding of the victim with accused No. 1, it is highty improbable. As the victim was a newly wedded bride. Further as already observed, there is no complaint either to the Police or parents and she has happily gone to USA along with her husband after lapse of so much of time, a complaint is made that the petitioner-accused No.3 has harassed her in India. So far as harassment in USA is concerned, allegations are omnibus and even otherwise there is bar under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal procedure.

¶85

In view of the above facts and circumstances and also in view of the principles laid down in the above said authorities, this Court is of the view that if the proceedings are permitted to continue against the petitioner herein, it would amount to abuse of proccss of law. The Police should not have filed charge sheet against the petitioner-accused No.3. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.3 in C.C.No.99o

¶86

¶87

of 20L7 on I h( lilc of k,:rrnecl VII Mctroltolitan M:rgisrraLe, Ilach.rkonda ir1 Ha),.athnag:rr r:irn br, <1uitshccl.

¶88

Accordingly, the criminal petition is allorvecl quashing the proceedings ag:rinst the pctitioner_accused No.3 in C.C.No.990 of 2017 on the file ol learned VII Mctropolitan Magistrate, Rachakonda at Hayathnagar. The trial Court shall proceed with the case against accused Nos. 1 and 2 on merits of the case, uninfluenced by the observations and comments passed by this Court in this order.

¶89

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed

¶90

¶91

Sd/. P, PADMANABHA RE ASSISTANT REGISTR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTIO FFICER

To,